Jon Stewart takes Christopher Hitchens to school
By on Aug 26th, 2005 at 9:30 am
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Jon Stewart is the most under-rated media personality in the nation today. The thing I like the most is that he (with the help of the Daily Show writers) might just singlehandedly change the tone of 24/7 cable news as we know it… Already you see cracks in the system : Crossfire gone, CNN replacing Wolf Blitzer and his political operative guests with “Your World Today” during lunch hour, growing self-critique of missing white woman coverage, and so on.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:07 amit says a lot about how weak our media is when it takes a comedian to point out the obvious.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:16 amOhioan,
I really agree. What a breathe of fresh air
August 26th, 2005 at 10:17 amthat show is.
Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are brilliant! The guy’s as sharp as a tack and he nails the administration to the wall almost every night. The fact that Lott and Santorum et al. have gone on to face him indicates that they understand he’s a player. What gets me is that he slaps down the hypocrisy and lies of the Bushies (and the Dems) all the time but the rightwing smear merchants NEVER go after him. Why is that?
August 26th, 2005 at 10:25 amCarville and Novak attacked him in unison. Cost them both their TV slot.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:39 amFrom a recent show [paraphrasing]
PAULA ZAHN: “Has controversial Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson finally gone too far or is he on to something?”
JON STEWART: “Pat Robertson has since apologized. But has Paula Zahn?”
My sentiments exactly. The Pat Robertsons of the world get their credibility from the Paula Zahns of the world…
August 26th, 2005 at 10:45 amthey never go after him, because unlike the cowards in the mainstream media(dan rather), he will fight back and make them look like the fools they are.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:51 amHumor, satire and sarcasm are the most effective agents of change there are. No one likes to be ridiculed. I have heard reporters joke that the script that they were just handed and read on the air will guarantee they end up on Jon Stewart as the butt of a joke.
Somewhere along the lines progressives forgot to laugh. Rush’s appeal isnt his politics, its his humor. Jon is balancing things out.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:55 amThe Republicans learned the value of ridicule as an effective tool in shaping public opinion decades ago. Look at the mocking of Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry; all of them were attacked in order to diminish their credibility in the eyes of the public.
I’m not saying Jon Stewart is a tool of the Democrats. I’m just saying that you need to fight the Republicans in the gutter because that’s where they live.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:03 amthey have always ridiculed Ted Kennedy because they fear him. its as simple as that.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:11 amNever accept a ride home from Ted Kennedy…
August 26th, 2005 at 11:19 amJon Stewart and Keith Olbermann have the only news worth watching.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:20 amRidicule and humor are one thing, but the rightwing smear machine (including Limbaugh allwrits) isn’t using humor at all. They just outright lie and call their enemies names. Jon Stewart juxtaposes what they said then and what they’re saying now, exposing hypocrisy with video proof and he’s funny as hell doing it. Humor alone is effective, humor coupled with the truth is deadly.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:22 amsee, its so easy to make fun of Kennedy for the drunk driving thing. its all those child like conservatives have to fall back on.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:25 amC in #10.
I think you’re right, but they fear Stewart too and they don’t mess with him. Stewart pummels the Bushies but you never hear Hannity and O’Leilly dragging his name through the mud. Stewart even taunts both of them regularly….still no retaliation. They fear The Daily Show more than the Democratic politicians. Hah…a sorry state indeed.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:29 amComing soon this fall: “The Colbert Report”
Looking forward to the split-screens…
August 26th, 2005 at 11:34 amthey saw what Stewart did to Tucker Carlson, they dont wanna be exposed as sheep like him.your right about how they fear John Stewart more than the Dems, so maybe the Dems should take a cue from the Daily Show.Colbert is the shit, i cant wait for that show.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:37 amis Colbert still gonna be on The Daily Show when his own show starts? i hope so.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:38 amI think C hit the nail on the head (Comment 7) – Stewart once called out Tucker Carlson, and that is the last time any one of them took him on.
August 26th, 2005 at 12:17 pmStewart was at his very best last night w/Hitchens. It’s a pleasure to see someone wield the unbiased truth as a deadly weapon so skillfully. Before last night, I had never seen a guest run off the stage. Glad it was Hitchens.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:08 pmKos has some Stewart stuff from last night, too.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:12 pmThanks for the link. It was great to see Stewart speak truth the way he does.
And I loved with he did to Tucker! :-)
August 26th, 2005 at 1:15 pmDid I watch the same “debate” as you? Stewart hardly took him to school. The only substantive point that Stewart made, and it was hardly substantive, was that he disagreed with Bush’s presentation of the war using simplistic motivational speeches. Stewart and Hitchens found common ground in the conversation by essentially rejecting the argument (made by many here) that American foreign policy has created terrorism in the Middle East. Hitchens also agreed with Stewart that bush contradicts himself in saying that we have to fight the war “over there” and not “over here,” since as Hitchens notes, the war is global in nature and therefore requires a global focus, not merely an Iraq focus.
Stewart also failed to respond to Hitchens answer to Stewart’s original question as to the legitimacy of the war. Hitchens notes the four conditions which can cause a state to lose its sovereignity (1. aggression against neighboring states; 2. genocide or attempted genocide; 3. violation of non-proliferation treaties; 4. harboring gangsters or known terrorists), and points out that Saddam’s regime had violated all four multiple times. Hitchens then notes the case for removing Saddam from power had already been completed in 1998 when the United States Senate unanimously adopted the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton and Gore both made several public speeches at the time (see http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ for instance) arguing that confrontation with Saddam was inevitable, and that the goal would then be removing him from power. When Hitchens noted that the case for war had been made, in other words, back in the late 1990s, coalescing with the Iraq Liberation Act, no one had dissented. Where were the liberals then writing their senators demanding explanation? Stewart’s (weak) response to this was to basically say that no one in the US believed that that Act was anything other than pure symbolism! It’s ridiculous, and I’m wondering if you even watched the debate at all. If anything, it was a friendly disagreement, but if you want to get technical, Stewart’s failure to address Hitchens’ arguments were indicative of his own failure in the debate.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:43 pmscott,
I watched it again and to be honest, you make a fair argument. Hitchens certainly didn’t get taken to school by Stewart here, but that doesn’t take anything away from Stewart’s role as an effective voice of reason night in and night out.
As for Hitchens’ points on sovereignty and how it can be lost:
1. Saddam showed aggression against neighboring states (Kuwait and Israel) before and during the 1st Gulf War. Bush 41 waged that war, won it convincingly (despite the fact that we tacitly approved his invasion of Kuwait) and Iraq was subjected to U.N. sanctions ever since. They were disarmed and contained as both Rice and Powell said publicly on 2001. Hitchens’ statement applied in the early 90’s, it does not apply to this war.
2. Genocide? If he’s referring to Saddam “gassing his own people” he’s only telling half the story. The same group of American leaders were in power at the time and we looked the other and in fact we SUPPLIED THE WEAPONS!!! Do the leaders of the free world have to look in the mirror for allowing that to happen? For facilitating it?
3. Violation of non-proliferation treaties? Hey hypocrite, have you been paying attention to what our fearless misleader has done in regard to non-proliferation?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm
4. Harboring known terrorists? As Stewart said last night, that incriminates Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What are we doing about it?
August 26th, 2005 at 2:14 pm#23 & #24 — It’s a comedy show. It’s not Jon Stewart’s job to run these guys through the wringer, he just makes them look bad and show their hypocrisy. Running them through the wringer comes under the purview of the SCLM. Knock, knock, media…anyone home?
August 26th, 2005 at 2:32 pmJay
Well put.
August 26th, 2005 at 2:32 pmSince Hitchens was/is no friend of Israel, I thought when he listed those four categories that he was going to produce Israel from a hat at the end, although Menachem Begin, Yitschak Shamir and the rest of the Isaac Stern gang are borderline terrorists in Israel, since they commited their atrocities in founding the state of Israel. Its all semantics really. But to talk about ignoring UN resolutions, invading other countries, possessing WMD and conducting genocide (perhaps ethnic cleansing only), you can’t look about the ME without thinking of Israel too.
I don’t think Stewart cleaned Hitchens’s clock, but he did pretty well for a comedian with a fake news show. Hitchens trotted out the old Zarqawi in Iraq tale – but didn’t mention that Dubya had two chances to attack him in his hideout in Kurdish northern Iraq but didn’t (lest it interfere with his Iraqi invasion plans).
August 26th, 2005 at 2:40 pmI’m just glad Steward addressed the myth that Bush protesters just want to cut and run, surrender, withdraw from the world and be isolationists. Blue states do most of the world traveling in this country. Red states are the isolationists. That’s why they can afford to f*** up the rest of the world — they never go there!
August 26th, 2005 at 2:48 pmhippie, that’s such a good point. And until they allow chewing tobacco on international flights and NASCAR catches on in Europe….our foreign friends will be spared the pleasure. (just kidding :)…it’s Friday!
Peace!
August 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pmpeople like scott fail to see the hypocrisy of “going after the bad guy” when they only “go after the bad guy” that benefits them. you get so worked up about:1. aggression against neighboring states; 2. genocide or attempted genocide; 3. violation of non-proliferation treaties; 4. harboring gangsters or known terrorists), and points out that Saddam’s regime had violated all four multiple times. guess what dumbass? that includes Pakistan,Saudi Arabia, North Korea,Iran ETC ETC ETC ETC. your so gung ho whenever your “fearless” republican leaders speak,it doesnt matter if they have nefarious motives,and alternate reasons they dont share for “going after the bad guys”. everything is so black and white to you fools.turn off your media and think for yourself for once you sheep.
August 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pmThis just in from Captain Obvious:
You know, if the bad guys always wore black hats and the good guys always wore white hats, it would be so much easier.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:12 pmthats how they see the world though. complications be damned.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:47 pmI switched off the video when Stewart labeled as “stupid shit” the idea that the US’s own actions in the middle east should be thought of as having consequences. I respect the man for skewering the wingnuts, but he’s evidently drunk some of the same kool-aid that they have.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:45 pmI am reluctant to offer geopolitical strategic advice, C, since it’s obviously not my trade. But I do think that simply throwing out other known rogue states is a red herring. There are political constraints on attacking somewhere like Korea that do not exist for a country like Iraq, and when one sees how difficult it is to even mount support for this war, I don’t see how one can expect to take seriously this idea the US is hypocritical because they aren’t mounting numerous other wars simultaneously. The fact of the matter is Iraq is far more important a country, economically and strategically, than many other countries.
Secondly, it is still entirely feasible that by making an example of Iraq, the United States can effect change in various rogue states. One, it’s possible that Shock and Awe was as much effective beyond Iraq’s borders as within Iraq’s borders. Soon after the invasion, we saw Libya agree to abandon its WMD program, and seemingly interested in playing ball. Furthermore, a free, humane and democratic Iraq will contradict the deception that democracy and freedom are western notions that cannot take root in Islamic and Arab middle east. That is a lie perpetuated by despots, and success in Iraq will communicate to the rest of that region that such is the case. Insofar as that leads to pressure for change by the oppressed, it can have longrun benefits to those very oppressed people if it leads to regime changes. There are a number of options for dealing with rogue nations, not all of which require military intervention. Simply because Iraq did and does require that does not mean it is the appropriate solution in every case.
Besides, note that Iraq did not merely violate one of those four conditions – it violated all four multiple times, and the decision to invade was made in an overlapping and bipartisan executive branch environment. Bush’s decision to invade had precedent – Democratic precedent, in fact. Where were you in 1998 when the Iraq Liberation Act was signed? Something tells me you weren’t troubled when it was Clinton saying regime change was inevitable.
I, personally, want to see this war successful because I want Iraq to be a prosperous, growing, free nation. I want the Iraqi people to be free. But I do think that it requires committment by the United States. The advances made towards liberty and democracy in a few short years are astounding to anyone but the most blinded ideologue (like yourself it seems).
August 26th, 2005 at 5:11 pmZOOKEEPER: “Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann have the only news worth watching.”
I’ve been thinking the same thing! Although, surprisingly, Lou Dobbs (hardly a liberal) can vigorously smack-down wingnuts on occasion, holding little back.
August 26th, 2005 at 7:23 pmShorter scott:
Iraq has oil and no WMD, making it legitimate target.
The reverse “domino theory” will show the Arabs we mean business. Nevermind that US foreign policy keeps dictators in power in the Middle East.(”Simply because Iraq did and does require that [military intervention]does not mean it is the appropriate solution in every case.” Sorry, but that is a fallatious argument; neither you, nor Hitch for that matter, have given a clear argument for military intervention in Iraq).
The NeoCons get a free pass to invade because of a highly politicized vote immdiately preceding a midterm election and a symbolic and meaningless resolution passed at the behest of the NeoCons and exile Iraqis (and Chalabi), better known as the “Clintondidit” defense.
“The advances made towards liberty and democracy in a few short years are astounding to anyone but the most blinded ideologue” This is rich, in light of the fact that the result seems to be a greater Iran, and a highly Islamist state being born in Iraq. Unintended consequences anyone?
kool aid
August 26th, 2005 at 7:40 pm“The advances made towards liberty and democracy in a few short years are astounding to anyone but the most blinded ideologue†too bad less Iraqis have electric, jobs, running water, food, etc. than before the invasion. but your blinded ideologue doesnt allow you to see that either right?
August 26th, 2005 at 7:42 pmkeep searching for talking points though Scott, they work for people like yourself who need to be told how to think. Fox News is good at teaching people like you how to think. you should check them out.they are good at waving the flag blindly.
August 26th, 2005 at 7:43 pm#4 #7 #12
August 26th, 2005 at 9:08 pmStewart’s show is the best news satire I have seen in decades. He is witty, smart and I very much enjoyed his giving Hitchens an argument. Hitchens is a smart man, but his intelligence is wasted on him with his inflated ego and single-mindedness.
Keith Olberman (MSNBC)is other news anchor that I try not to miss. He is funny and satirical also.
I agree that the MSM is not all that eager to take on Stewart – look what happened to Novak, Carlson and the now re-structured (although I don’t know if it’s for the better) CNN.
#24 Jay
August 26th, 2005 at 9:14 pmI agree with your reply to Scott – he makes an argument, but none of it justifies what we have done, nor does it excuse the harm Bush has done. Saddam was a tyrannical dictator, but there are many like characters in the world; we went in there for oil and revenge – that was clear to the world if not all Americans.
Besides, Stewart’s show is a comedy.
Oh, wait – so would the Bush presidency be, except people are dying.
re #23: I too was impressed with Hitchens point that S. H. had exposed his regime by failing all four of the conditions, but after watching the interview again, I saw that only the U.S. and the U.K. imposed the penalty. Germany, France, India did not decide to serve notice.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:33 pmMaybe Hitchens hasn’t read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Maybe he’s just not used to an audience that will fact check him anymore.
The Iraq Liberation Act was about assisting democratic Iraqi opposition groups in causing regime change from within, followed by international tribunals for Saddam and his accomplices and humanitarian assistance for post-Hussein Iraq.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
“SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Clinton made quite a few mistakes, but he wasn’t going to get us stuck in a (much more profitable) rerun of the Soviets’ Afghan debacle.
“SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) ["Military assistance", including training and materials of up to $97,000,000 in value] in carrying out this Act.”
August 27th, 2005 at 12:03 amMy thanks to MisterOwl (#43). Now I have to wonder whether Hitchens knew and did not say or did say without knowing. My daddy, the bookie, would have laid long odds on the second but even money on the first choice.
August 27th, 2005 at 12:21 amJust wanted to clear up a popular myth perpetuated by right-wing radicals and posted above, ie, that Bush’s pulling out U.N. inspectors and deciding to invade Iraq was the reason that Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD program. It was actually the result of two things: one was the sanctions imposed by the Clinton administration, and second the economic aid provided by Europe. The invasion of Iraq was hardly necessary to disarm Lybia. Its also significant that suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism have gone up under 5 years of the Bush administration. If Iraq is the flypaper that ultimately traps and kills all the world’s Islamic radicals, its obviously not a very effective strategy. That bastion of left-wing extremists ;) at the U.S. Army War College and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sharply criticized the invasion of Iraq, saying it diverted resources from the search for Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network and employed distorted U.S. intelligence findings to justify the desire to topple Hussein.
August 27th, 2005 at 4:37 amThis entire debacle has proved to the world how incompetent conservatives are at responding to Islamic radicals. The neocons have been a dream come for Bin Ladens recruiting efforts. Like most liberals I know, I thought at first, that well, we’re there, lets accomplish the mission, stabelize Iraq, then get the heck out. Who could have dreamed that it all could have been screwed up so badly. AWOL told New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: “No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” Its more like hes the most cognitive dissonant and criminally negligent. Iraq is costing us 1 billion dollars a week, while most of Afghanistan is returning to its glory days as one of the worlds biggest opium producers.
re #41: You’re right-on Marie, especially the last part !
Regarding Jon Stewart, I love the show, and I think that there’s more “truth” in what you see on his show than 99% of the MSM “news”/entertainment/scandal shows.
Regarding Limbaugh using humor…. Where?
In a certain pathetic, mean-spirited, dishonest, -kind of way maybe. Personally. I’d rather drink my own puke than listen to his kind vocal bile ( ;) sorry for the visual there folks, it’s harsh but true ;) ).
Please Jon, give us more shows like the last one !!!
You make us proud when you take on the right-wing blowhards (not that Hitchens is necessarily “right-wing”, but he is kind of a pompous blowhard at times).
Also, keep those excellent guests coming ! And on a separate note; could the show be expanded to a full hour ?
As I might have said back in the 70s… Right-Freakin ON !
August 27th, 2005 at 9:56 am… I agree , TRD ! i mean , Adam Corolla isn’t funny ( neither was Colin Quinn ) ! And although the reruns of the previous nights DS were better than corolla & quinn put together , can’t Comedy Central spring for a few extra minutes of show ? I can stand the extra commercials ( unless it’s for those d*** ” girls gettin’ wasted ” videos – trashy to the nth degree ! ) …
August 28th, 2005 at 2:04 am#36 – Yes, sometimes Lou Dobbs has his moments, but I can never make it all the way through the Lou Dobbs Xenophobia Hour.
August 28th, 2005 at 1:07 pmi enjoyed reading your stuff. cool site. full, tremendous, astonishing nothing comparative to international: http://www.un.org/News/ , Steal Game is very good Slot full is feature of faithful cards , when Opponents is Cards it will Make Girl lazy, full, astonishing nothing comparative to standard
December 4th, 2005 at 1:27 pm